Ronald Reagan on Unions and Collective Bargaining

Samuel Gompers believed with all his heart that if a worker was properly and fairly paid for his work, he could provide for himself without having to hold out this hand to a caseworker for government-provided benefits. He was a champion of collective bargaining.

Collective bargaining in the years since has played a major role in America’s economic miracle. Unions represent some of the freest institutions in this land. There are few finer examples of participatory democracy to be found anywhere. Too often, discussion about the labor movement concentrates on disputes, corruption, and strikes. But while these things are headlines, there are thousands of good agreements reached and put into practice every year without a hitch.

Part of successful collective bargaining is honest, straightforward exchanges. A number of Presidents have observed that of all the meetings in the Oval Office, the most direct, productive, and useful have been with the leaders of organized labor. Straight talk has always been a feature of these exchanges, and that’s a tradition I want to continue here today. You and I may not always agree, as President Konyha said, on everything, but we should always remember how much we have in common.

I can guarantee you today that this administration will not fight inflation by attacking the sacred right of American workers to negotiate their wages. We propose to control government, not people. Now, today I want to express again my belief in our American system of collective bargaining and pledge that there will always be an open door to you in this administration.

[…]

Some people would have forgotten — except your president very graciously reminded you — that I am the first man to attain this high office who was formerly president of an AF of L - CIO union.

~ Ronald Reagan, 3 September 1981. Remarks in Chicago, Illinois, at the Annual Convention and Centennial Observance of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners.

It' important to note that Reagan gave this speech less than a month after firing striking air traffic controllers.

Walker claims he's acting as Reagan would, but the fact of the matter is that Walker does not fundamentally understand how unions fit into Reagan's worldview. Re-read the second to last paragraph quoted above:

I can guarantee you today that this administration will not fight inflation by attacking the sacred right of American workers to negotiate their wages. We propose to control government, not people. 

Scott Walker is proposing to do just the opposite: he's using the levers of government to deny people the right organize for their own economic well-being.

In many of Reagan's other writings, in particular those supporting the Solidarity movement in Poland, the Gipper lays out that unions are a check against government power and abuse. He was incredibly eloquent about reserving a place at the table for unions and that's one of the reasons why there were so many Reagan Democrats, many from union households that supported him. Read the whole speech here.

Super Bowl Ads Link Orgy

100 Greatest Super Bowl Commercials, Bleacher Report
Super Bowl Advertising: By the Numbers, CNBC
The Best Super Bowl Commercial Preview so far, MSNBC
Super Bowl Ad Frenzt Stretches Far beyond the Game, NPR
The Man Behind some of the Super Bowl's most Memorable Commercials, Marketplace
Here's a Look at the Cost of Super Bowl Commercials through the Years, Business Insider
Groupon Buys a Super Bowl Ad, CNNMoney
8 Companies that need Super Bowls Ads, Time
Top Banned Super Bowl Commercials: Jesus hates Obama, Go Daddy, PETA, Bud Lite and more, New York Daily News
GM's $3M Ads a Bargain if Super Bowl meets Record Audience Forecast, Bloomberg
Dallas Ad Agency Plays the Super Bowl Field, NBC Dallas-Fort Worth
Super Bowl Ads Hit Web before the Big Game, PCWorld
Super Bowl 2011 Expected to Break Spending Records, iStockAnalyst
Super Bowl will be a Super Day for Smart Phones, Research Firm Predicts, Internet Retailer
The 50 Worst Commercials in Super Bowl History, Bleacher Report
How an Accidental Reply All Email Spawned a Commercial, Gizmodo
The Geekiest Super Bowl Commercials Ever, Geeks are Sexy
Fallen Stars: the Worst Celeb Super Bowls Ad Moments, MSNBC
How Small As Agencies are like Super Bowl Commercials, Ad Age
Why Super Bowl Ads Should Cost Five Times as Much, Online Video Insider
Super Boring? Super Bowl Ads Fail to Score with Old Excitement, Louisville Courier-Journal
Three Lessons from Pepsi's Super Bowl XLV Ad Campaign, Forbes
15 Sexiest Super Bowl Commercials of All Time (Including 4 Banned Ads), Total Pro Sports
Is $3M Worth it for a Super Bowl Ad? Ask Go Daddy, Washington Post
30 Seconds for Super Sell, Boston Herald
Are Super Bowl Ads Worth the Super-high Price? Yahoo Buzz
Are Super Bowl Commercials Worth it? Not so Much, Lafeyette Journal and Courier
Super Bowl Ads Worth it in the Long Run, Reports Say, Epoch Times
Super Bowl's Premium Ads come at a Price, Newark Star-Ledger
Demand for Super Bowl Ads Spikes in Canada, Toronto Star
VW's Unusual Super Bowl Web Strategy: Move On, Clickz
Top Super Bowl Ads from the Last 10 Years, The Vancouver Province
8 Dot-Coms that Spent Millions on Super Bowl Ads and No Longer Exist, Business Insider

?????

This may be the single most incredible paragraph you will read all year:

As Bloomberg BusinessWeek reported in an excellent 2009 story on Glock, the company's success might also be due to some questionable business practices. The company has come under fire, in a manner of speaking, for making secret political contributions. It has also been accused of dodging taxes and regulations through shell corporations. (Because the company is based in Europe and is privately held, it does not need to disclose nearly as much sales or legal information as a public U.S. company.) Corporate intrigue and violence are part of the picture, too. Gaston Glock's former business associate, a man occasionally known as "Panama Charly," is currently incarcerated in Luxembourg, convicted of taking out a hit on his boss in 1999. (The hitman was a former professional wrestler and, bizarrely, the attempt came not with a handgun but with a large rubber mallet to the head. Glock survived.)

Panama Charly? ... Hitman? ... Former professional wrestler? ... A large rubber mallet?

Go to the link and read the story. It's as good as advertised.

More is Apparently Less ... When it Comes to Regulation

There are so many layers of bullshit to this story it's really hard to know where to start:

A regulatory reform bill proposed Tuesday by Gov. Scott Walker would place new restrictions on wind development and calls for a special exemption for a Neenah-based businessman and contributor to Walker's gubernatorial campaign.

So right off that bat we've got Walker increasing regulations -- even though he ran an entire campaign claiming that just such regulations were "job killers," etc. -- whilst carving a convenient exemption, and likely competitive advantage, for a contributor.

All hail the "free market"!

Ron Johnsonomics, or How to Eliminate the Competition from Your Business Plan without even Trying

This sentence caught my eye reading an otherwise positive piece in the Onalaska Holmen Courier-Life:

Pacur started with just one customer, Curwood, a company co-founded by Johnson’s father-in-law, Howard Curler.

That probably sounds pretty innocuous, maybe even a little cute: a brash start-up valiantly trying to make it in this crazy world, the old man chipping in to help out ... but that's really not an accurate way of looking at things.

Curwood is actually a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bemis Corp. and has been since 1965, twelve years before Johnson started Pacur. In other words, his father-in-law wasn't just helping out Pacur by throwing some business its way, this was a corporate giant (that made almost $5 billion last year and has been a publicly-traded company since the early 1970s) granting a lucrative subcontract to a company with no prior track record for delivery.

Those kinds of business relationships only come about through crazy connections and in this case the connections were familial.

Apparently, Bemis has remained Pacur's largest customer ever since.

This isn't a small detail. It's probably a lot easier to secure a loan for manufacturing capital when you can explain to the loan officer at the bank that your small business is guaranteed a fat contract from a local supplier once it gets up and running. It may very well be the reason why Pacur even exists in the first place.

I don't want to begrudge Pacur its success -- cashing in on family connections is just smart business -- but it is not, repeat, not an example of the "free market" principles that Johnson extols continuously on the campaign trail. I'm sure that Pacur provided Bemis with a quality product, but I sincerely doubt they have faced much competition. Let's face it: Curwood was never going to pull the plug on a contract co-owned by the owner's son and son-in-law. When a person or company is all but guaranteed a significant portion of it's annual income regardless of performance, well, that sounds an awful lot like welfare.

Johnson may rail against government handouts and sing the praises of Ayn Rand, but his career in business is an illustrative example of how even "Free Markets" are never actually completely "free." Even if we lived in a laissez faire paradise without any government regulation or taxes, we still would never live in a completely "free market." Had I produced a product for Bemis of higher quality and at half the cost, would anyone believe I would have stood a chance of competing for Pacur's contract with Curwood? Of course not: the livelihoods of the owner's son, daughter and grandchildren depended on money moving from Bemis through Curwood and to Pacur.

No wonder Johnson is such a big proponent of the "free market" -- it's been competition "free" for most of his career.

In a sense, Johnson owes much of his good fortune to a form of private sector welfare. Yes, Pacur has other clients, but a big part of business is building a foundation from which to work on, and that was essentially provided for Johnson by virtue of his family connections. Had he not married into the Curler family Johnson might still be keeping the books at a class ring-making company instead of becoming the President of a plastics manufacturing company.

The other angle to this story involves is the extent of Bemis' partnership with Pacur over the years. Part of the persona that Johnson is selling to voters is that of the savvy business leader who knows how to create manufacturing jobs. That may be true, but if Bemis is responsible for 50%, 60%, 75% of Pacur's business, then Johnson really hasn't been responsible for growing a business so much as that business is essentially a glorified subsidiary of Bemis.

In a recent TV spot Johnson tried to frame the Senate race as a common sense businessman with 30+ years of creating jobs vs. a career politician. It's easy to critique the "career politician's" record because Feingold's made thousands of votes in the last 20 years, so perhaps we should start giving Pacur the same level of scrutiny?

I don't doubt that Johnson is a hard worker, but his business history simply does not jive with his Randian conception of the economy. Johnson has been the recipient of numerous enormous breaks that a vast majority of people don't get in their careers and to pretend like he's some kind of economic ubermensch who will led us to prosperity through the sheer force of his own will to power is ridiculous.

Ron Johnson Wants to Name Names -- Just not any Names in Wisconsin

Yesterday Sens. John McCain and Tom Coburn released a report (see below) detailing what they called the 100 most wasteful stimulus projects. The report was issued by each Senator's offices, even though both men are up for re-election this year and conveniently issued the report with about 100 days before the election.

So it came as little surprise when I saw this today on Ron Johnson's Facebook page (click on the images to embiggen):
The post linked to this page on RJ's website:

First of all, I think it's amusing that Johnson's campaign cited a program in Washington state and claims that it's not "getting the job done for Wisconsin families."

Well, of course not. Nor is any federal money going to the Pacific Northwest.

The example cited obviously comes from McCain's report -- it's ranked #1 on the list. One can reasonably assume that tomorrow's example of wasteful spending will be "Dance Draw" interactive dance software development (it's #2 from McCain's study). On Friday plan on learning all about the Northshore connector between PNC Park, Hienz Field and a casino in Pittsburgh (#3).

SPOILER ALERT: #100 is a student alcohol consumption study at Columbia University.

The point is this: Johnson can moan about any one of the stimulus projects, but what he owes voters are examples of which projects in Wisconsin he believes are pork and how much money he wants sent back to Washington. There have been over $3.6 billion in stimulus funds awarded to Wisconsin: how much of that would Johnson like us to give back?

Let's put it another way: the four area codes that comprise the city of Oshkosh (54901-4) have been allotted $63,335,832 in stimulus funds according to Recovery.gov -- which projects should the people of Oshkosh go without?

I bring this up because over a year ago there was much ado about a stimulus project here in Oshkosh that involved a parking lot just off Main Street. At the time Mayor Esslinger was a member of a very vocal minority who opposed the project. Most people in town supported it, including the Main Street business owners whom would be inconvenienced by a few months of construction and most of the local business community. Johnson's voice was nowhere to be heard. In fact, Johnson appears to have had nothing to say in public about government spending until he helped organize the Oshkosh Tea Party in October of Last year. Seeing that Johnson dropped his Tea Party association entirely after discovering the Tea Party is actually a lunatic fringe, one has to wonder how long his devotion to spending cuts would last in Washington?

So, again, which programs should we get rid of? What programs are essentially a waste of tax-payer money?

Can we start of this list with the obviously politically motivated "report" that the Johnson campaign is now using as a talking point?

Here's the McCain/Coburn report:
McCain/Coburn Stimulus Report

Now the BP Stock Thing is an Issue

Even though I initially defended Ron Johnson's ownership of BP stock a few weeks ago, this is going to create enormous headaches for him:

MADISON, Wis. -- Wisconsin candidate for Senate Ron Johnson says he hasn't decided whether to sell his BP stock, two weeks after he told reporters he would get rid of it.

Financial disclosure forms show the Oshkosh manufacturer owns between $116,000 and $315,000 in BP stock. On July 9, Johnson's campaign said he would be moving his investments into a blind trust.

But following a campaign rally just days later, the Republican told reporters he planned to sell the BP PLC stock to help finance his campaign against Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold.

Johnson on Monday says he will probably sell the stock to help finance his campaign, but he hasn't made a decision yet.

If you say you're going to do something, you kind of have to go ahead and do it.

To be honest, in the back of my mind I was expecting this move: hedge and/or delay until the issue blows over. When RJ first floated the idea of selling the stock was worth about half of what it was when Johnson entered the race. That would mean he would have gotten a haircut that cost between $58,000-$157,500. The stock has rebounded since then -- he might just be waiting for a better time to dump it.

This probably has more to do with recouping an investment then it does to perceived ties or loyalty to BP, but, again, when you say you're going to do something, you kind of have to go ahead and do it.

[via IT]

MORE: Here's audio of RJ explaining to a reporter that he'll consider selling the stock based on "market conditions." I have no idea when the recording was made.

A Tale of Two Economies

Ireland went the austerity route:

Nearly two years ago, an economic collapse forced Ireland to cut public spending and raise taxes, the type of austerity measures that financial markets are now pressing on most advanced industrial nations.

“When our public finance situation blew wide open, the dominant consideration was ensuring that there was international investor confidence in Ireland so we could continue to borrow,” said Alan Barrett, chief economist at the Economic and Social Research Institute of Ireland. “A lot of the argument was, ‘Let’s get this over with quickly.’ ”

Rather than being rewarded for its actions, though, Ireland is being penalized. Its downturn has certainly been sharper than if the government had spent more to keep people working. Lacking stimulus money, the Irish economy shrank 7.1 percent last year and remains in recession.

Germany went for the stimulus:

If the trend continues, say the experts, the German economy will grow by well over 2 percent this year, or almost twice as much as in most neighboring countries. Economists are already proclaiming a second economic miracle, while a former French foreign minister is complaining that Germany is "number one in Europe" once again.

The unexpected comeback is the result of an unprecedented large-scale economic experiment. After last year's dramatic economic slump, Chancellor Merkel, after some initial hesitation, decided to support a bailout program modeled on the theories of British economist John Maynard Keynes. When the economy is in decline, the professor concluded based on the experiences of the Great Depression, the government must quickly counteract the trend with massive government spending programs.

In keeping with Keynes' theory, the former grand coalition government of the center-right Christian Democrats (CDU) and the center-left Social Democrats (SPD) launched an extensive package of stimulus and bailout measures, which included €480 billion for ailing banks, €115 billion for financially weakened companies and €80 billion for two programs to stimulate the domestic economy. As then-Finance Minister Peer Steinbrück said, the goal was to "fight fire with fire."

The Absurdity of Ayn Rand Acolytes

Patrick McIlheran has a post that reads something like "John Galt blah bah blah Bucyrus blah blah blah Free Markets blah blah blah" ... or something.

The problem that McIlheran and the rest of the cranky conservative cognoscenti in Southeastern Wisconsin ignore is that the U.S. Import-Export Bank is a government institution. If the Bacyrus ordeal were really a corruption of the free market system they would have found their loan from a private lending institution. Unfortunately, private lending institutions don't have $600 million to hand out willy nilly these days.

Basically, these conservatives are complaining that a government agency isn't handing out cash like it's supposed to ... so if the "environmental concerns" of conservatives were taken out of the equation, we're still left with a industrial company relying on massive government assistance to carry out its business.

How the hell does that jive with the "small government" rhetoric these guys deploy endlessly?

If the dudes who worship at the altar of Ayn Rand and invoke the name John Galt like a had an ounce of intellectual integrity they would be celebrating the loss of the Bacyrus jobs as the "free market resolving ineffectiveness," or whatever.

But that doesn't make for good politics now, does it? Especially in an election year when it's always the private sector that creates jobs and always the government that's responsible for unemployment.

The Wealth of American Presidents

Adjusted for inflation.

Ads of the Damned: Greater Wisconsin Committee, "Remember"

The script starts with a deceptively innocuous question: "Remember how we got into this mess?" What mess? There's a mess? Where is it? Of course, it turns out that the narrator is talking about the economic mess, but why not just state that from the beginning?

Most people have multiple messes in their lives. Trying to grab someone's attention by ambiguously referring to one of those messes with the hopes that they'll stick around to find out which one the TV is talking about is asking a lot. I honestly tuned out after the question was asked and never really devoted a significant amount of attention to the rest of the spot. I had to watch the damn thing a half dozen times in order to register a reaction to it. That's not good.

If the script would have read "Remember how we got into the financial mess?" then I would have understood immediately what was going on right from the outset, but the omission of a single word derails the whole thing.

Massive problem #2: why is this ad attacking both Scott Walker and Mark Neumann? Pick a bad guy and stick with him. If you can't decide on whom to attack then the ad is running way too early.

The rest of the ad is void of anything that really drives home the point that Neumann/Walker's economic policies are bad for the state. The six black and white squares don't really pop and the symbols contained therein just get lost in the clutter.

And so does the message for that matter.

Final Grade: D-

Friday Night Link Orgy

Hiam Saban: The Influencer

Britain gets a Continental Parliament ... or, Everything Sucks

National Review says good-bye to Supply Side Economics [via LOG]

Will Ferrell is no Max Patkin

"Glee" may not change the world -- but did "Will and Grace" already do it?

What's bigger news than Obey retiring? Sestak leading Specter in PA

Pray the Gay Away -- some dude goes to a sexual orientation conversion camp [via LF]

Kyle Maichle Just Making Shit Up

Here's is an interesting read of this AP article:

As the news over the past week surrounds Harley Davidson shipping more jobs out of state due to the high taxes in Wisconsin...

The article Maichle cites doesn't mention the word "taxes" once. The actual reason is put rather bluntly:

A recent analysis found a number of significant "cost gaps" that must be filled for the company to remain competitive, Harley spokesman Bob Klein said. The largest gaps involved labor costs and scheduling flexibility, Klein said.

In other words, it's a dispute between labor and management, not a tax issue.

Furthermore, Maichle misses the bigger problem with Harley:

The Milwaukee-based company has been struggling with sluggish sales, particularly of its high-end bikes. It reported last week that its first-quarter profit plunged 72 percent from the same period last year, while revenue dropped 19 percent. Retail sales of its heavyweight motorcycles fell more than 18 percent worldwide, the company said, with sales in the U.S. falling by nearly a quarter.

This should come as no surprise. Harley's aren't cheap. They're a luxury item that caters to an upper income consumer. When the economy sucks people tend to cut back on their luxury spending.

Your TV Station Sucks!

This fall's TV schedule today:

According to an analysis of pilot orders by Barclays Capital analyst Anthony DiClemente, ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox have ordered a total of 84 pilots, and of those 44 are comedies. Last year, the big four ordered 81 pilots, of which 34 were comedies. The drama orders are basically flat, with 35 ordered this spring compared to 34 last year. DiClemente did not include the CW, but that network has six drama pilots. The CW does not program comedies, at least not intentionally.

Jonathan Kruase's Alternate Economic Reality

Man, Jonathan Kruase really doesn't have the first damn clue what he's talking about when he's discussing financial issues. Here's the latest proof of his own obliviousness:

But what really gets my goat is that the reform bill is the brainchild of Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd. Dodd is the very Senator who helped to create the situations that led to the mortgage crisis. He led the charge to bully Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make the sub-prime mortgages that created the financial bubble which burst two years ago.

This is false:

Fannie, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., don't lend money, to minorities or anyone else, however. They purchase loans from the private lenders who actually underwrite the loans.

It's a process called securitization, and by passing on the loans, banks have more capital on hand so they can lend even more.

I don't know how anyone else could make that more clear: subprime mortgages were created by private banks and lending institutions, not Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. Krause simply doesn't understand the very role of the institution he's criticizing. Here he is again wrapping up that thought:

At that time, banks were "evil" for locking so many "hard-working" Americans out of homeownership by having such ludicrous requirements like down payments and the ability to actually repay the loan. Senator Dodd also seems to forget he supported the de-regulation of Wall Street that opened the door to derivatives trading without direct SEC oversight.

Again, here's more of the McClatchy piece:

This much is true. In an effort to promote affordable home ownership for minorities and rural whites, the Department of Housing and Urban Development set targets for Fannie and Freddie in 1992 to purchase low-income loans for sale into the secondary market that eventually reached this number: 52 percent of loans given to low-to moderate-income families.

To be sure, encouraging lower-income Americans to become homeowners gave unsophisticated borrowers and unscrupulous lenders and mortgage brokers more chances to turn dreams of homeownership in nightmares.

But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income families represent a small portion of overall lending. And at the height of the housing boom in 2005 and 2006, Republicans and their party's standard bearer, President Bush, didn't criticize any sort of lending, frequently boasting that they were presiding over the highest-ever rates of U.S. homeownership.

Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.

Got that? 24% in 2006 is less than 48% in 2004 -- so the F-Macs actually decreased their presence in the secondary markets during that time that Krause thinks they were trying to monopolize the market ... or something. Here's a more accurate conclusion to draw:

During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.

Moreover:

Fannie and Freddie, however, didn't pressure lenders to sell them more loans; they struggled to keep pace with their private sector competitors. In fact, their regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, imposed new restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie losing even more market share in the booming subprime market.

What's more, only commercial banks and thrifts must follow CRA rules. The investment banks don't, nor did the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime loans.

Which is all pretty much the exact opposite of what Krause is claiming.

So if you're relying on Jonathan Krause to help you through our tough economic time or with your own personal finances -- stop what you're doing right now! There are charities that do fine work who need the money you're throwing away.

More Bad News for Goldman

When it rains, it pours:

Here are the events as they unfolded: Goldman Sachs and US-based investment firm Cerberus acquired 66,000 apartments belonging to Berlin's publicly owned real estate company GSW for €2.1 billion ($2.8 billion) in 2004. There was just one catch -- the city stipulated that the company as a whole could only be floated on the stock market prior to 2014 if the city gave its consent. After that date, the investors could do what they pleased with their properties.

But Dibelius wasn't willing to wait that long. In November, he contacted the city. Berlin's Finance Senator Ulrich Nussbaum responded in December, asking for €30 million in return for the necessary approval.

The Goldman Sachs manager didn't want to pay. In initial negotiations with the city, according to the bank, he offered to extend tenants' rights, which were otherwise only guaranteed until 2014, in exchange for the city waiving the €30 million fee.

The city was unwilling to accept the offer, so Dibelius hatched a crafty plan. He commissioned Stuttgart-based attorneys Eisenmann, Wahle and Birk to draw up an expert opinion that was intended to make it difficult for Berlin's city government to make any further demands.

The payment of this "not insignificant sum of money," as the lawyers phrased it, "would create criminal liability for bribery." They urgently recommended "refraining from an offer, promise or payment of a not insignificant sum of money to the city of Berlin."

Absurd Accusations

Armed with his lawyers' 36-page document, Dibelius apparently suggested that Nussbaum dispense with the monetary demand, to avoid opening himself up to the suspicion that he could be bribed.

But Nussbaum brushed the investment banker off. The artificially constructed accusation of crime seemed absurd to him -- and to the city senate's lawyers as well. Some even described it as a shameless attempt at extortion.

Now Dibelius had a problem. If he still wanted the deal, he would have to pay the fee. That in turn would open him up to the suspicion of bribery established by his own lawyers -- and leave no doubt about the original intentions behind his actions.

Green Shoots

I just saw a TV ad for Bergstrom Porsche of the Fox Valley.

Either the economy is doing far better than just about everyone thinks or someone needs to rethink his advertising strategy.

"This bill seems designed to make the sale of such property nearly impossible unless there is a very, very patient buyer. "

Actually, this bill seems designed to give the sellers of mobile home parks more leverage over potential buyers.

Let's face it: mobile home occupants probably don't have access to the kind of financing that would allow them to make a viable counter offer. The bill looks like it provides mobile home owners with the chance to make a counter offer on the initial bid for a given mobile home park. That means the initial bidders have to take two things into account: (1.) they have to make an original bid that's high enough to preempt a potential counter offer, or (2.) they have to respond to a potential counter offer with a second bid large enough to send the mobile home folks packing. The fact that mobile home park residents could access financing from the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority instead of having to rely on money from private banks means potential buyers would almost necessarily have to consider a potential counter offer into their initial bids.

Either way, the dude selling the mobile home park wins out and probably squeezes an extra few thousand bucks out of somebody in the end.

Friday Night Link Orgy

The Springfield Nuclear Power Plant baseball team get the Sabermetics treatment.

Democrats are finally hitting back against the ridiculous "no tax" pledge.

"Medicade: A Bargain, not a Burden"

Career suicide via Twitter.

The Dow breaks 11,000.

The old Texas Stadium: Project "Demolicious."

Was the Health Care Reform win based on an appeal to emotions?

Taxes.

The Evolution of Paul Ryan's "Tipping Point"

That's why John Kerry has to preach the politics of division, of envy and resentment. That's why they talk so much about two Americas. But class warfare is not an economic policy. And the politics of division will not make America stronger, and it will not lead to prosperity.

I say to them: Anger is not a governing philosophy.

Instead, we offer a more hopeful vision to America by reaffirming our party's commitment to freedom and opportunity for all.

That was Rep. Paul Ryan speaking at the 2004 RNC convention, right after he lavished praise on President Bush's tax cuts -- tax cuts that were enacted after Iraq and Medicare Part D, government projects that will end up costing in excess of $2 trillion worth of debt and which Ryan supported.

But following the 2008 election Ryan changed is tune. Less than a week before Obama took office, Ryan offered a glimpse at his a how he was planning on framing the next legislative session in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal. Since then Ryan's warned of a tipping point in many of his speeches and commentaries. Here's an evolution of the phrase:

"Beware the Big Government Tipping Point," Wall Street Journal (1/16/09):

Nationalizing health care will be profoundly detrimental to the quality of American medicine. In the name of cost control, the government would make private investment in medical innovation far riskier, and thus delay the development of potentially lifesaving treatments.

It will also put America on a glide path toward European-style socialism. We need only look to Great Britain and elsewhere to see the effects of socialized health care on the broader economy. Once a large number of citizens get their health care from the state, it dramatically alters their attachment to government. Every time a tax cut is proposed, the guardians of the new medical-welfare state will argue that tax cuts would come at the expense of health care -- an argument that would resonate with middle-class families entirely dependent on the government for access to doctors and hospitals.

Of course, this health-care plan is occurring against our particular fiscal backdrop: Without major reform, our federal entitlement programs will soon double the size of government. The result will be a crushing burden of debt and taxes.

In short, we may be approaching a tipping point for democratic capitalism.

CPAC Keynote (2/29/09):

This phony stimulus hastens the steady march toward an irreversible "tipping point" in our democracy that threatens to radically alter the relationship between America's citizens and our government.

This "tipping point" has long loomed on our horizon in the form of $56 trillion in promised entitlement spending that we haven't funded. That $56 trillion IOU will require our kids to pay double the taxes we face - a level of government confiscation that endangers their future prosperity.

"A Transformative Health Care Alternative," Racine Journal Times (5/22/09):

The Obama plan promises change and progress, but it is based on old ideas. For the past 50 years, the Left has promised that a little more government intervention and spending will fix health care. If Washington can effectively run a health program like Obama's public option, why are Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal health programs in such disrepair?

Today, federal and state government controls about 60 percent of our health care economy, which has helped create the chaotic system Americans loathe. Congress and the Obama administration are now on a path to finish the job and move us past the tipping point into a Canadian or UK-style government-run system.

Remarks to the Racine County Economic Development Corp. Annual Meeting (5/28/09):

My greatest concern is that if we should choose the latter path, our nation will quickly reach what I have called a “tipping point,” where a majority of our people are receiving so much in government benefits that it will become almost impossible to reverse course and return to the path of freedom and self-reliance. Stagnation replaces growth…dependency smothers initiative and entrepreneurship…this would replace the American way of life that we hold dear. This future threatens the American ideal that previous generations poured their sweat and blood into building and preserving, and that current generations of Americans are responsible for advancing.

"Free Market Democracy at Risk -- And what We Must do to Save it," Remarks to the Economic Club of Minnesota (11/9/09):

Democratic capitalism is not just an economic system or a political system. It’s a culture – the way of life fit for free men and women. But I know the Congressional majority leaders. They are imitating other models: “Progressivism,” third way, corporatism, social welfare state, crony capitalism. Whatever the name, it is very different from the principles that made this country exceptional. European versions create bureaucracies intimately involved in the details of running their enterprises. They may dictate salary levels—think White House “pay czars.” They may govern businesses directly under nationalized ownership or management—think General Motors. They may do so indirectly by rewarding firms that cultivate bureaucratic connections instead of seeking consumers’ approval for innovations and other decisions. Markets that are truly free have wide-open doors of entry. Innovation overturns established firms, and bureaucrats don’t like unpredictability. Under these models, the doors of entry are closed to newcomers while government agents develop so-called “partnerships” with a few large entities.

We are moving swiftly toward a “tipping point,” where the majority of people pay little or no taxes but become dependents on government benefits. Tax cuts are virtually out of the question because more people have a stake in the welfare state than in entrepreneurism. Citizens who had once governed themselves become supplicants of a bureaucratic state, surrendering liberty in return for security. Whatever you call this, it isn’t free market democracy.

"A GOP Roadmap for America's Future," Wall Street Journal (1/26/10):

The difference between the Road Map and the Democrats' approach could not be more clear. From the enactment of a $1 trillion "stimulus" last February to the current pass-at-all costs government takeover of health care, the Democratic leadership has followed a "progressive" strategy that will take us closer to a tipping point past which most Americans receive more in government benefits than they pay in taxes—a European-style welfare state where double-digit unemployment becomes a way of life.

Floor speech before HCR vote (3/24/10):

My friends, we are fast approaching a tipping point where more Americans depend on the federal government than on themselves for their livelihoods – a point where we, the American people, trade in our commitment and our concern for our individual liberties in exchange for government benefits and dependencies.

[...]

As we march toward this tipping point of dependency, we are also accelerating toward a debt crisis – a debt crisis that is the result of politicians of the past making promises we simply cannot afford to keep. Déjà vu all over again.

Hillsdale speech (1/15/10):

America today is not as far from this tipping point as we might think. While exact and precise measures cannot be made, there are estimates that in 2004, 20 percent of households in the U.S. were receiving about 75 percent of their income from the federal government, and that another 20 percent were receiving nearly 40 percent of their income from federal programs. All in all, about 60 percent of U.S. households were receiving more government benefits and services, measured in dollars, than they were paying back in taxes. It has also been estimated that President Obama's first budget alone raises this level of “net dependency” to 70 percent.

"A Roadmap for America's Future 2.0," Racine Journal Times (2/2/10):

The difference between the Roadmap and the Democrats' approach could not be more clear. From the enactment of a $1 trillion "stimulus" last February to the current pass-at-all costs government takeover of health care, the Democratic leadership has followed a "progressive" strategy that will take us closer to a tipping point past which most Americans receive more in government benefits than they pay in taxes—a European-style welfare state where double-digit unemployment becomes a way of life.

"Keynesian policies wrong prescription for U.S. economy," The Hill (2/2/10):

The U.S. already has drawn perilously close to this “tipping point.” The Tax Foundation estimates that approximately 60 percent of Americans receive more in benefits and services from the government than they pay in taxes. The president’s fiscal agenda raises net reliance on government to 70 percent of the population.

"Roadmap for America's Future":

Now America is approaching a “tipping point” beyond which the Nation will be unable to change course – and this will lead to disastrous fiscal consequences, and an erosion of economic prosperity and the American character itself. The current administration and Congress are propelling the Nation to the brink of this precipice.

[...]

If the government continues following the “progressive” ideology now prevailing in Washington, America will increasingly resemble a European welfare-state – a society in which the majority of the people pay little or no taxes but grow dependent on government benefits; where tax reduction is impossible because more people have a stake in the welfare state than in free enterprise; where permanent high unemployment is a way of life; and where the spirit of risk-taking is smothered by a thick web of regulations and mandates from an all-providing centralized government.

The U.S. already has drawn perilously close to this “tipping point.” The Tax Foundation estimates that today 60 percent of Americans receive more in benefits and services from the government than they pay in taxes. The President’s fiscal agenda exacerbates this problem, raising the net reliance on government from 60 percent to 70 percent. Another analysis shows that from 1950 through 2007, the share of the population reliant on the government rose from 28.7 percent to 58.2 percent (see Figure 3). The study predicted that even without enactment of legislation such as cap-and-trade and health care, the share of the population dependent on the government will rise to 67.3 percent by 2018.